Amen. That's exactly what I thought when I read the details of this (non-) "story".

The US government has chosen to offer these bonds for its own reasons. One might argue whether the government should be raising money this way, but they (presumably) chose to do that and offer enough of a payout to make it worth investors' time and money.

As you said, that's how it bloody works! Apple just happens to be one of the companies that has taken them up on that.

There's plenty to criticise about Apple, both with their overpriced, walled garden devices, and how they manage their tax (dodging) affairs, but to contrive their investment- and ignore everyone else's- in government bonds that are specifically *meant* to work like this as a "story" is obvious clickbait BS.

Maybe I should have been clearer, but I'm not an American- I'm Scottish- and I'm not a "supporter" of Hillary Clinton (or the US Democrats) beyond the fact I thought she was the lesser of two evils.

At the end of the day, I'm not an American, and I understand that their way of thinking is fundamentally different to mine in many respects. (#) So I don't expect them to vote the same way or hold the same values that I do. That doesn't change the legitimacy of what I thought about Trump as a person (and why I said what I said above, particularly since we already had that piece of bullying, hypocritical garbage display a taste of that same behaviour with respect to the construction of- and issues surrounding- his own golf courses in Scotland).

I don't have time to read your link now, but yes, the Democrats sold out in the past 25 or so years. When Obama was elected and everyone expected him to be the second coming, I didn't- I knew he was a part of the same establishment that was by then already more connected with the banks and corporate interests than its grass roots.

By the time of the election, it was clear that it was going to be close- anyone paying attention should have known that. I had hoped Trump wouldn't win, but I wasn't remotely surprised when I turned on my TV first thing that morning and "Trump wins US election" was plastered over the screen. (Then again, we already had the Brexit vote which went the same way, so it was like deja-vu all over again).

(#) Too many people in the UK make the mistake of thinking that because they consume and enjoy American-produced entertainment (and speak the same language) that they "know" America. They don't. Those shows- aside from their being entertainment and not reality!- are disproportionately reflective of the urban, coastal mentality versus the culture in (what you guys call) "flyover country". America is not just New York and Los Angeles. America is not just the "cool" parts, and outside those areas it's more alien than most people recognise.

"Lol wut"? I honestly can't even figure out what words you're trying to put in my mouth here.

Are you attacking me for (supposedly) thinking like a lot of Americans that the idea of some teenage kid in prison for smoking a joint getting raped by another prisoner is funny? I don't.

Or are you attacking me for not thinking someone's eighteen-year-old son getting sodomised is funny, when mocking Trump's "small hands" is?

We might never know. Nor care.

OK, so "tiny hands" is approved sexism?

The "tiny hands" thing isn't even funny in itself, and no-one really gives a toss- nor takes seriously- the implied connection between Trump's (alleged) small hand size and his dick. (Spoiler; yep, that's what it was about!)

I think what pretty much everyone involved in that joke (which apparently goes back to the 80s) finds funny is that the puffed-up, egotistical Trump is also so thin-skinned and insecure as to be unable to resist having to respond to it, even though it's obviously a wind-up.

Pay attention. Though I agreed that Trump was a dick, that was a means to an end. (#)

If I'd been a Trump supporter and said that the article was clickbaitified shite, you might accuse me of being partisan. If it's clear that I despise the guy (too) and I still think the article is Trump-exploiting clickbaitified shite, then it's more likely it's because it actually *is* Trump-exploiting clickbaitified shite.

You honestly think I'm saying this purely for the sake of not losing friends on Facebook (which I don't use) and I'm a secret Trump supporter...(?!) Or should I be saying something controversial for the sake of saying something controversial?

Whatever.

(#) Although to be fair, he *is* a dick, and I don't apologise for expressing my opinion- it's just beside the point here.:-)

I love the way you employ psychiatric terms for personality disorders as a form of insult.

Anything intended as an actual insult was the "all-round, outright piece of shit" comment- and that's an honest reflection of my opinion of the guy based on what went before (and pretty much everything else he's done).

But if there's such a thing as narcissism that goes way beyond the puffed up egotism that's par for the course with high-ranking politicians on every side and into delusional psychological disorder territory, I'm pretty sure Trump is there.

I've absolutely no doubt that if he had lost the election he genuinely would have believed- and convinced his supporters- that it *had* been rigged. *He* couldn't possibly have lost.

BTW, was it intentional that the tone of your comment came across as very Trump-like? (Albeit that Trump himself would almost certainly have been more likely to throw some direct insults among the snide sarcasm).

The reason this is a non-story is because if the president-elect really *is* a dangerously thin-skinned sociopathic narcissist unsuited for the job of leading a country armed to the teeth with nukes and the purported free world- which he certainly is- then a few shitty unwanted SMS messages at two in the morning are the least you (or anyone else) has to worry about.

The degree to which Trump gets obsessively defensive about the "tiny hands" taunts would actually be funny (#) if such a thin-skinned and easily (if not reliably) manipulated guy hadn't just been elected the "leader of the free world".

Before he got elected, Trump projected his own narcissistic paranoia onto America when he claimed that "the world is laughing at us".

The irony is that now he's been elected Putin *will* be laughing up his sleeves at America, at the fact the guy he wanted to win- the one who's easily manipulated into selling out his country's interests by a few flattering words playing on his ego- won the American election.

(#) And believe me, given how shamelessly the guy has used- and continues to use- his power to bully anyone who doesn't agree with him, there's no-one I'd feel less guilty about taunting.

What the fuck is this? I don't like Trump because I have a brain cell, but this is bullshit garbage. msmash/manish needs to go.

I don't like Trump either- mainly because he's an openly self-serving sociopath, a narcissist to almost certainly pathological degree, a shameless bully with no target too cheap or low if it dares to threaten his dangerously thin skin, and an all-round, outright piece of shit.

And I agree with you- this story (or rather, the Trump slant on it) is clickbait garbage of the type that's going to dilute and cheapen any legitimate criticism of him because people switch off after getting overwhelmed by opportunistic Trump-slanting of crap like this at the slightest excuse.

Perhaps Getty argued they had creative input. Perhaps they not only digitized it, but color corrected or cleaned it up. Again, as I've also stated several times, we don't know enough information to pass judgment.

It was *you* who originally raised this as (a purely hypothetical basis for) a claim on Getty's part! I merely responded explaining why I didn't believe it would be valid.

Similarly, in response to your speculative example that they might have applied colour correction and cleaning up, these would probably fail for similar reasons, i.e. non-creative input below the threshold of originality under US law.

But as you've stated several times, we don't have enough information, so this *is* all just speculation- on your part.

Regarding the *possibility* that Getty might have scanned her images and she might have used those copies- that's irrelevant for reasons I already posted in response to one of the other three posts where you made this point.

Her use of Getty's database services may be a separate issue, but unless they're they've actually alleged in court as part of their case that she did that (and agreed to their terms), it's irrelevant speculation.

if someone takes a picture of it they absolutely have a right to license the use of that picture of it. You're free to go take your own picture of the painting, or pay for someone else's picture of it... or even possibly get it for free from somewhere else.

You've already made this point several times elsewhere (specifically, four times in this thread AFAICT) and as far as I'm aware, you're mistaken.

Under US jurisdiction (but not necessarily elsewhere), if your photograph- or a digital scan- is a purely mechanical reproduction with no creative input, you can't claim copyright on it and I'm quite entitled to use it without paying you.

(I guess if you can con someone into agreeing to pay your "license" fee, there's not necessarily anything illegal about that, but you shouldn't be able to claim that they're legally required to do that).